Obviously, if they were giving out NFL expansion teams today, Green Bay would not get a franchise. However, if you're the NHL, doesn't it make sense to expand to a city where there is (a) a large population base, and (b) there is no other game in town? Especially when you consider that the NHL gets most of its income from attendance and not television. If they put a team in Cleveland they would have to compete with the Cavaliers in a city of 500,000.

Plus, I think Columbus built an arena for the Blue Jackets, so the facility was in place to have the team. Is there someplace in Cincinnati where they could have an NHL game besides on of the big empty sections of seats at Great American Park or inside Ken Griffey's giant ego? Perhaps in one of the holes in Pete Rose's "I didn't bet on baseball" story?

“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim

The Cleveland Barons (ne California Golden Seals, Oakland Seals) tanked and merged with the old Minnesota North Stars and the Cincinnati Stingers of the old WHA are famous only for having had Mark Messier and Barry Melrose as former players.......Ohio has never really been considered a hockey hotbed.

Originally posted by dunkndollazOhio has never really been considered a hockey hotbed.

And that's exactly why the NHL is in trouble. They see a large urban centre and they want to put a team there, regardless of whether it's going to make it. As a result they've expanded the league and diluted the product, all for the sake of minimal attendance games and a few more franchises that struggle financially. When you're putting teams in towns where you have to teach the locals the rules of the game to catch their interest, it should be obvious that there isn't an existing demand for your product and it's just bad business to spend the kind of money it takes to set up a team in the hopes you can create the interest later.

Originally posted by BigVitoMarkAnd that's exactly why the NHL is in trouble. They see a large urban centre and they want to put a team there, regardless of whether it's going to make it. As a result they've expanded the league and diluted the product, all for the sake of minimal attendance games and a few more franchises that struggle financially. When you're putting teams in towns where you have to teach the locals the rules of the game to catch their interest, it should be obvious that there isn't an existing demand for your product and it's just bad business to spend the kind of money it takes to set up a team in the hopes you can create the interest later.

I thought the NHL was in trouble because the players get 80% of the revenue in salaries compared to 50-60% in football, basketball, and baseball and the owners were going to have to take drastic measures to get their sport more in line with the more successful ones.

I'm not going to argue about the dilution of the product. The NBA went from 21 to 29 teams pretty quickly and the league is just now starting to get back to where it was quality-wise and that's largely due to the import of European players. But saying the expansion has been for "the sake of minimal attendance games" is a little silly. Last year there were five teams that played to capacity of less than 80% at home with a low figure of 72.2% in CHICAGO, an Original Six franchise. One of the other teams under 80% was New Jersey, the Stanley Cup Champions. Columbus ranked 11th out of 30 in terms of percentage.

Contrast those numbers with the NBA, a comparatively healthy league. They had seven out of 29 teams below 80% with a low of 55.9% in Cleveland and Atlanta at 66.3% The Trashers played to 72.7% capacity, so there isn't a lack of interest in hockey compared to basketball.

Weren't (aren't?) the teams in financial peril the Sabres, Senators, and Penguins? Hmmm. Buffalo and Pittsburgh have long-standing NHL franchises and Ottawa is the capital of the most-hockey-lovin' country in the world! I haven't heard about the Coyotes (just got a new arena) or Stars (just got a new arena) struggling to survive in the southwest US. Or Tampa Bay, whose 83.7% attendance is comparable to the 85.7% of the Orlando Magic.

I find it hard to believe that the NHL owners would sit in a room and say, "you know, we should start putting teams in places where they know nothing about hockey." I don't see a team in Houston or San Antonio. There isn't an NHL team in Seattle or Portland, even though there are WHL franchises that get decent support and the Rose Garden in Portland couldn't be more ready for an NHL team to move right in.

“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim

Let's face it, all Canadian cities are "small market" compared to the big American towns like Chicago, New York & Los Angeles.

CALGARY: The Flames moved to Calgary in 1980-81. Cup in 1989.EDMONTON: The Oilers debuted in 1979-80 after the WHA folded. Lots of Cups.MONTREAL: Les Canadiens debuted in 1917-18. They won't go anywhere. They've won more Stanley Cups than any other team in history.OTTAWA: Senators folded in early 20s, returned as expansion team in 1992-93.TORONTO: The Arenas debuted in 1917-18. Later, they were renamed the St. Patricks and later still, the Maple Leafs. Lots of Cups, but none lately.QUEBEC CITY: The Nordiques debuted in 1979-80 after the WHA folded. No Cups, but team moved to Denver in 1995-96 and won the Cup.VANCOUVER: Debuted as expansion team in 1970-71.WINNIPEG: The Jets debuted in 1979-80 after the WHA folded. Moved to Phoenix in 1996-97.

The difference between Calgary (for example) and other cities is that Calgary has something like nine owners. It's not hard, especially in an oil town, to find people willing to throw money at a hockey team (especially if they'll get free publicity out of it). Edmonton nearly got sold to evil foreign (American) investors before the people of Edmonton basically bought out the team from the creditors. The NHL doesn't want any teams to leave Canada, because they'd lose money on the deal. The fact is that with the new CBA coming up, the owners know whether or not they can afford to stick around...and the addition of a new owner in Calgary basically solidified to the fans that they're sticking around.

The people running the Chicago Blackhawks haven't given a damn about winning for years, they're just looking to make a dollar. That's plain as day. It's no mystery why they're at the bottom of the league in terms of attendance, along with Pittsburgh and Buffalo, two other teams being run on a shoestring budget. It's hard for the casual fans to support franchises going nowhere, I can understand that.

But who is that at the very bottom of the league in terms of number of people through the turnstiles? That's right: Atlanta, Phoenix, and Nashville...three markets the NHL should have known better than to get involved with (including one they've been in before and failed). These teams even have the novelty factor going for them (new franchise, new arena) and yet already they're at the bottom of the league. Clearly none of those markets were starving for hockey; if they were, there would be more people at the games. I can't wait to see what they're drawing two or three years from now when they're not the new game in town anymore, just another game in town.

I think the NHL might be keeping Portland as the backup in case one of the bankruptcy teams is forced to move. The Penguins could move there and even keep the alliterative name.

If I ran the NHL....contraction would be the first thing on my mind. Goodbye Panthers, Hurricanes, Thrashers, Predators and maybe the Coyotes (though maybe we could just move them back to Winnipeg). There's no shame in cutting your losses, and losing four teams would improve the overall quality of play in the league.

"When this bogus term alternative rock was being thrown at every '70s retro rehash folk group, we were challenging people to new sonic ideas. If some little snotty anarchist with an Apple Mac and an attitude thinks he invented dance music and the big rock group is coming into his territory, [that's] ridiculous." - Bono, 1997

I wasn't referencing Chicago for any other reason but to show that it's not one of the "new" markets down at the bottom in terms of who fills their arenas. You took Phoenix, Atlanta, and Nashville because they have the lowest number of fans, but I think the better barometer is percentage of seats sold. For instance, Edmonton is 15th in terms of number attended, but they are 10th in terms of percentage. This is the bottom five:

So you've got two expansion teams who've never had success, a team with serious financial issues, an Original Six franchise, and the Stanley Cup Champs, who have been as close to a dynasty as any team in the league for the past ten years. Can you really make a judgement on Atlanta and Nashville's viability as hockey towns when they've never had a good team? I realize that the Flames left Atlanta, so doesn't it make sense that the league took a HARD look at Atlanta before deciding to go back? The Rockies left Denver for New Jersey, but the league let the Nordiques go back to Denver and they are FIFTH in the league in attendance, while the Devils are 26th! Perhaps they should move the Devils to a town that would fill the arena, although I wonder if 78% of an arena filled at New York/New Jersey pricing gives the league more money than, say, a 100% filled arena in Winnipeg or Quebec City or Hartford.

The teams that are at the top of the list are Minnesota and Toronto, followed by Detroit, Dallas, and Colorado. Do I think it's a coincidence that the three most successful franchises in the West are those three and that they are at the top of the league? No. Do I also think that it's a coincidence that the teams at the bottom of the list are teams without a track record of recent success (except the Devils)? No. Give Atlanta or Nashville a couple of 50-win seasons in a row and I would bet that their arenas get damned near filled...that's what happened here in Seattle with our baseball team.

“To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.

"Your input has been noted.I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim

One thing I remember about my days in Toronto (I lived in and around Toronto for the majority of my 26 years)...

When the Leafs were close to the playoffs, the Toronto media, especially the Sun, would have an incredibly love hate relationship with the Leafs. The Buds win? They're the best! We love them! However, should they lose? The exact opposite.

Here in Calgary, it's sort of the same way, but not as harsh. Mind you, we haven't made the play offs in how long?

Originally posted by BroncolancheIs it true that Leafs fans honk their horns for just winning a regular season game? I can understand doing that after reaching the conference or Cup finals, but for just one game? Nutty.

-ponders-

No. Nutty is, the night we eliminated the sens in spring 2002, me and my buds had an old Ottawa jersey that wasn't wanted anymore. We drove downtown, got out in an intersection (bumper to bumper, no one was going anywhere fast....) and me and my bud held the jersey aloft.....someone saw what we were doing, and ran to the nearest convenience store.....he came out a minute later, sprinting towards us, and we proceeded to douse the jersey in lighter fluid. We then held it up again, and lit it. There must have been 100 people fliming us......ahhhhhh memories.

In defense of Leafs fans and their nutty behaviour, in spring 2002 we TRULY thought we'd be going to the Cup final after beating Ottawa. I mean come on, the Leafs only had to go through Carolina! Piece of cake, right? Right? (crickets chirping)

Of all the gizmos forced upon us by the modern world, is any more melancholy than the leaf blower? The device is manifestly useless. It blows leaves from one place to another, and then the wind blows them back again. -- Roger Ebert

Watching that movie was like watching a young child be repeatedly punched in the face.-- my friend Dave after watching Bad Boys II

Your children will laugh when you're dead!-- Jason Robards in "A Thousand Acres"

I can tell you with no ego that this is my finest blade. If you should encounter God, God will be cut.-- Sonny Chiba in "Kill Bill: Volume 1"

I would gladly pay $10.00 to see a kangaroo kick the shit out of Jeff Jarrett.-- Bubblesthechimp

Calgary loves hockey. That may be over-generalizing, but I grew up going to Flames games from 1989 to 1997, and the teams ROCKED until '96. The arena was almost always packed, and there was always a sweet atmosphere in town whenever it was a game day. Now, it's less so...but whenever the team's playing well...it's virtually impossible to get tickets. We have a perennial "We'll get them this year" attitude...even though odds are we'll barely miss the playoffs this year...for the 8th straight season. The thing is, with the new CBA coming up next year...the 8 owners (from CalgaryFlames.com: Edwards, Hotchkiss, Libin, Markin, McCaig, Doc Seaman, Byron Seaman & Riddell) are all invidiually loaded...and apparantly willing to blow money on a hockey team. They've made money in the past (at least the Seaman Bros. have), and my guess is that they know that they can survive in a post-lockout world. Why? Probably because Harley Hotchkiss is the head of the NHL's Board of Governors and they want a salary cap and the small market teams to stay put. It's stupid for the NHL to expect me to pay to watch a team that'll move in a year or two...and the impression they're giving me is that everyone's staying put...except maybe Pittsburgh.

Moving any Canadian team is abhorrent to me as a proud Canuck, and also makes only a smidge of financial sense. What would you rather have: a naturally rabid fanbase, or a market probably being exposed to hockey for the first time? The Nordiques moving to Colorado worked because it was such a prime market, but d'ya think the Coyotes franchise would rather still be in Winnipeg? They'd certainly get more fan support and public interest as the only game in town, whereas the Coyotes have to compete with the Suns, Diamondbacks and....well, I was going to say Cardinals, but come on.

Hell, given the way that the Canadian dollar is rising thanks to the US economy's follies, maybe it'll soon make financial sense to stay in Canada. Winnipeg and Quebec City need new teams, not to mention Halifax, Hamilton and Saskatoon. And London. Edited because there's no such city as Qinnipeg

(edited by Big Bad on 25.10.03 0331)Of all the gizmos forced upon us by the modern world, is any more melancholy than the leaf blower? The device is manifestly useless. It blows leaves from one place to another, and then the wind blows them back again. -- Roger Ebert

Watching that movie was like watching a young child be repeatedly punched in the face.-- my friend Dave after watching Bad Boys II

Your children will laugh when you're dead!-- Jason Robards in "A Thousand Acres"

I can tell you with no ego that this is my finest blade. If you should encounter God, God will be cut.-- Sonny Chiba in "Kill Bill: Volume 1"

I would gladly pay $10.00 to see a kangaroo kick the shit out of Jeff Jarrett.-- Bubblesthechimp

I think it's also fair to say that the Avs winning a Cup in their first year in Denver contributed to their success in the market. Show me a Coyotes team that wins championships and I'll bet I can show you a few thousand more hockey fans living in Phoenix. I think the biggest thing standing in the way of Canadian expansion is not the relative economy or the strength of our dollar but the Canadian attitude towards public money going to arenas or tax cuts for teams.

Ours is an uninformed population, they hear "tax cuts for the rich" or "X million for an arena" and they freak out, without consideration of the externalities of the issue. Don't forget when the feds tried to level the playing field with tax cuts a couple years ago...it took two days of public outcry before Manley pulled the deal off the table. But before I get reamed for posting this in the hockey forum and not the politics forum, I guess I should re-focus...

Winnipeg and Quebec City may have fanbases, but they don't have arenas. The private sector won't front the money because the cities would have a tenuous at best hold on the clubs, and government won't front it because the people won't stand for it. Without new arenas and the money that comes with it, the teams won't be able to compete even with a favourable CBA. You can't run a team in 2003 on a 1987 budget. If fan support were the only issue those cities would have never lost their teams in the first place.

The reason that the Flames, for instance, have usually thrived is that Cliff Fletcher (GM in Atlanta & Calgary until 1990) built up a great team so that when a bunch of rich oilmen from Calgary bought the franchise and moved it to Canada, it made the playoffs every year. So, if your team is immediately successful (like Colorado was), people will go see it. The jury's still out as to Denver's viability as a hockeytown mainly because the Avs haven't had any lean years thus far, while the Canucks, Flames, Oilers, Senators, Leafs & Canadiens have all suffered and thrived throughout non-playoff years.

Of all the gizmos forced upon us by the modern world, is any more melancholy than the leaf blower? The device is manifestly useless. It blows leaves from one place to another, and then the wind blows them back again. -- Roger Ebert

Watching that movie was like watching a young child be repeatedly punched in the face.-- my friend Dave after watching Bad Boys II

Your children will laugh when you're dead!-- Jason Robards in "A Thousand Acres"

I can tell you with no ego that this is my finest blade. If you should encounter God, God will be cut.-- Sonny Chiba in "Kill Bill: Volume 1"

I would gladly pay $10.00 to see a kangaroo kick the shit out of Jeff Jarrett.-- Bubblesthechimp

Winnipeg lost the Jets due to the fact that our 13,000-seat arena wasn't generating enough revenue to make the team economically viable. The public sector was weary of using tax dollars to build a new facility, and the Jets were moved.

Oddly enough, it took 6 years before someone stepped up and decided it was time to make a change. Now, we're getting a brand new arena for our AHL franchise.

That's fine - Because I have my sights set on the day they implode the old Winnipeg Arena. There's just too many bad memories in the old barn. The Jets blowing 3 game to 1 leads in the playoffs, In Your House 4 . . .

Originally posted by raygunThat's fine - Because I have my sights set on the day they implode the old Winnipeg Arena. There's just too many bad memories in the old barn. The Jets blowing 3 game to 1 leads in the playoffs, In Your House 4 . . .

Hey, how many people can say that Shawn Michaels refused to job a title in their own hometown?